First Amendment Commons^™

Protecting Islam's Garden From The Wilderness: Halal Fraud Statutes And The First Amendment, Elijah L. Milne

Journal of Food Law & Policy

Like all religions, Islam needs protection from governmental encroachment. As early as 1644, Roger Williams, the founder of Rhode Island, recognized that state involvement in religious matters defiles religion. "When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of [religion] and the wilderness of the world," wrote Williams, "God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made His garden a wilderness ... ." Although Williams was mostly concerned about the government's impact on Christianity, his oft-quoted metaphor applies equally to the government's influence on Islam. This Article will discuss …

“Alexa, Am I A Murderer?”: An Analysis Of Whether The First Amendment Protects Smart Speaker Communications, Josie A. Bates

Arkansas Law Review

State v. Bates poses interesting First Amendment questions that go far beyond the case itself, such as whether communications to and from smart speakers are protected under the First Amendment and, if so, whether the government must therefore meet a heightened standard before obtaining information from these devices. But currently, there are no definite answers. Thus, this analysis will attempt to answer these questions as well as offer general guidance for the future of First and Fourth Amendment law in the age of ever-changing technological advancements and never-ending criminal accusations.

Comrades Or Foes: Did The Chinese Break The Law Or New Ground Ground For The First Amendment, Artem M. Joukov

West Virginia Law Review

Prior to exiting the White House, President Trump placed a variety of restrictions on Chinese-owned social media applications, TikTok and WeChat, threatening to greatly curtail their influence in the United States. While couching his actions in the context of national security, the former president engaged in viewpoint discrimination in plain violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rulings in favor of TikTok and WeChat were encouraging and should stem the tide of future government regulations of social media platforms. This article discusses how the decisions fit into the greater context of First Amendment jurisprudence and …

Cancel Culture Attacks On Books And Authors, Joseph A. Custer

Faculty Publications

Some people today view free speech as a threat to emotional safety and well-being. Cancel culture attempts to silence authors who express “unapproved” opinions by removing access to their works, publicly shaming them, and making attempts to destroy their livelihood. Cancel culture has been increasing, particularly on social media.

In this paper, the author argues that cancel culture is the antithesis of freedom of expression. He explores cancel culture through the theoretical lens of John Stuart Mill and a more contemporary advocate of free expression, Jonathan Rauch. The author discusses the controversy associated with Dr. Seuss Enterprise's decision to stop …

Pressing The Verdict: The Social Influence Of Pretrial Publicity On Juror Biases, Kara Cato

CMC Senior Theses

Past psychological research has indicated that pretrial publicity has a significant impact on jury decision-making (Shniderman, 2013). This current review aims to expand on past research by investigating the social influence of pretrial publicity on juror biases. The effects of pretrial publicity on juror biases are examined through three mechanisms of social influence: story model, predecisional distortion, and conformity prejudice. This research inspects the relationship between media and the law by reviewing the pervasiveness of the media's depiction of criminal cases, the changing nature of media, and the biasing effects of media exposure. In addition, it explores the different forms …

A Pleasure To Burn: How First Amendment Jurisprudence On Book Banning Bolsters White Supremacy, Amy Anderson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mitigating Misinformation On Social Media Platforms: Treating Section 230 Of The Communications Decency Act As A Quid Pro Quo Benefit, Meghan E. Mcdermott

Connecticut Law Review

The rise of misinformation on social media has prompted governments worldwide to enact legislation that may affect every person’s right to freedom of opinion and expression. In the United States, combatting misinformation shares surprising bipartisan support in an ever-divided political landscape. While several proposals have emerged that would strip social media companies of the twenty-fiveyear-old law that shields them from lawsuits over content, it is unlikely that they would survive the seemingly insurmountable First Amendment scrutiny. Thus, an alternative to combatting misinformation is needed.

In an attempt to provide an alternative, this Note presents a model for mitigating misinformation. By …

How Scotus's Recent Decision On The Cheerleader Case Impacts Public School Students' Due Process Rights For Their Off-Campus Conduct, Abby Efron

St. Mary's Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Gag With Malice, Shaakirrah R. Sanders

Washington and Lee Law Review

This Article brings agriculture privacy and other commercial gagging laws into the ongoing debate on the First Amendment actual malice rule announced in New York Times v. Sullivan. Despite a resurgence in contemporary jurisprudence, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch have recently questioned the wisdom and viability of Sullivan, which originally applied actual malice to state law defamation claims brought by public officials. The Court later extended the actual malice rule to public figures, to claims for infliction of emotional distress, and—as discussed in this Article—to claims for invasion of privacy and to issues of public importance or concern.

United …

The New Pornography Wars, Julie A. Dahlstrom

Faculty Scholarship

The world’s largest online pornography conglomerate, MindGeek, has come under fire for the publishing of “rape videos,” child pornography, and nonconsensual pornography on its website, Pornhub. As in the “pornography wars” of the 1970s and 1980s, lawyers and activists have now turned to civil remedies and filed creative anti-trafficking lawsuits against MindGeek and third parties, like payment processing company, Visa. These lawsuits seek not only to achieve legal accountability for online sex trafficking but also to reframe a broader array of online harms as sex trafficking.

This Article explores what these new trafficking lawsuits mean for the future regulation of …

Revisiting Employment Division V. Smith, Blaine L. Hutchison

University of Cincinnati Law Review

The Supreme Court wrongly decided Employment Division v. Smith. Without briefing or argument over the Free Exercise Clause’s meaning, Smith eliminated the constitutional right to exercise religion and replaced it with an equal protection rule. The decision threatens religious freedom and encourages conflict. The Supreme Court should revisit Smith. This article shows that the majority’s arguments in Smith fail and contradict the Free Exercise Clause’s text, purpose, and original meaning.

The Smith majority gave no sound legal or policy reason for its decision. Indeed, the decision conflicted with settled precedents that no party questioned. Nor did it determine …

Case Summary: Dr. Seuss Enterprises V. Comicmix Llc: Ninth Circuit Affirms Copyright Fair Use And Trademark Infringement Precedents

Golden Gate University Law Review

More than twenty years ago, in Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., the Ninth Circuit favored Seuss, concluding that The Cat NOT in the Hat!, a self-described “parody” of The Cat in the Hat, did not represent “fair use” of the children’s book under the Copyright Act. In 2019, Seuss entered litigation with ComicMix, the creator of Oh, the Places You’ll Boldly Go!

(“Boldly”), another self-proclaimed parody of the Dr. Seuss classic Oh, the Places You’ll Go! (“Go!”). The case presented a set of facts strikingly similar to those in …

Social Media And The Common Law, Leslie Y. Garfield Tenzer

Brooklyn Law Review

The framers of the United States Constitution and those who developed the early common law were no strangers to printed media. They could not, however, have anticipated the widespread ability of average people to communicate instantaneously with large audiences via platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. Despite this new technology, courts have primarily relied on pre-social media precedent, rules of law, and the Constitution for guidance when confronted with civil and criminal social media misconduct. On the one hand, relying on existing law is a good thing; it reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to precedent and stare decisis. On the other …

If You Can’T Beat Them, Get Even: A Proposal To Level The Playing Field Between Social Media Platforms And Their Wrongfully Removed Users, Bernie Gabrielle Toledano

Brooklyn Law Review

Millions of individuals in the United States maintain both personal and business accounts on social media platforms, a handful of which dominate the market for online content. However, if one of these platforms removes an account without cause, the affected user has little recourse because most platforms’ Terms of Service contain clauses allowing them to terminate user accounts for any reason. Nevertheless, as the power imbalance between platforms and users grows, scholars and judges are starting to believe that there is a need for greater regulation of these platforms. This note explores the ramifications of the social media regulatory gaps …

New Light On The History Of Free Exercise Exemptions: The Debates In Two Eighteenth-Century State Legislatures, Stanton D. Krauss

Catholic University Law Review

As Justice Gorsuch pointed out in his concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1734 (2018), there is an ongoing debate about whether the First Amendment ever requires the recognition of religion-based exemptions to neutral and generally applicable laws. The leading proponent of such exemptions has argued that the original understanding of the Free Exercise Clause supports his claim, and that the existence of such exemptions in preconstitutional American statutes – which he believed to have been granted because legislators thought them mandated by “the free exercise principle” – is one factor …

Let's Get Real: Weak Artificial Intelligence Has Free Speech Rights, James B. Garvey

Fordham Law Review

The right to free speech is a strongly protected constitutional right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly expanded free speech protections for corporations in Citizens United v. FEC. This case prompted the question: could other nonhuman actors also be eligible for free speech protection under the First Amendment? This inquiry is no longer a mere intellectual exercise: sophisticated artificial intelligence (AI) may soon be capable of producing speech. As such, there are novel and complex questions surrounding the application of the First Amendment to AI. Some commentators argue that AI …

Native America: Universities As Quasi-Cities, Sovereignty And The Power To Name, Victoria Sutton

American Indian Law Journal

Universities as quasi-cities have an obligation to reflect on their educational mission, and public universities have a responsibility to Native America through the unique federal trust responsibility owed to Native Nations by the federal government. The naming of buildings and transitioning to responsible adulthood requires universities, administrators, and students to reflect on who we were, who we are now, and whom we hope to be. Collaborative efforts to work with Native Nations should be undertaken with regard to naming issues.

Sovereigns possess power to control historical narratives and outcomes through their sovereign power to (1) name geographical places; (2) protect …

Put Mahanoy Where Your Mouth Is: A Closer Look At When Schools Can Regulate Online Student Speech, Courtney Klaus

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note proposes a way to approach online student speech in three different contexts: cyberbullying, online threats, and other kinds of incendiary speech. Each approach is informed by a combination of lower court precedent, historical trends, and Supreme Court dicta to piece together when exceptions to online student speech protection may apply. Each analysis provides an explanation of how Tinker can and should be used to justify school discretion over particular kinds of online speech. Part I provides the history behind how the First Amendment has been used to protect public school student speech and discusses the unique issues the …

The First Amendment And Military Justice: Threats To Political Neutrality, Joshua Paldino

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

This backdrop illustrates a throughline that runs throughout, and creates tension within, the Military Justice system. On the one hand, there is a need to protect the individual rights of servicemembers. This concern is driven (in part) by the intuition reflected in Judge O’Connor’s opening sentences—those sworn to protect constitutional liberties should surely enjoy the benefits of that which they protect. On the other, individual rights protections must yield, to some degree, to the needs of military life and military exigency. Of course, "to some degree" is the space in which debate and maneuverability resides. But while discretionary space certainly …

Reconciling Self-Censorship: A Qualitative Study Of The Experiences Of University Staff And Administrators, Leigh C. Morales

Doctoral Dissertations

In addition to a global pandemic, the past three years have been marked by racial, social, and political unrest. These circumstances add meaningful context to examine and better understand factors that undermine free expression and contribute to self-censorship among university staff and administrators. To date, few studies have holistically explored the unique experiences of university staff and administrators with self-censorship and how this phenomenon affects their experience on college and university campuses. Understanding why staff and administrators choose to self-censor may allow for a deeper discussion about speech climate and the degree to which colleges and universities implement and uphold …